Skip to main content

tv   The Daily Show With Jon Stewart  Comedy Central  January 23, 2013 11:00pm-11:30pm PST

11:00 pm
- you look great. you look great. - yeah, i lost 50 pounds. - did you get that stomach stapling? - the lap-band. - you got the lap-band? - we haven't seen you since stadt at my grandfather's chalet, right? - i brought snow to the snow. - that was so fun. - welcome to my candy shop. [snaps fingers] - wait. jesus said you didn't have any blow. - oh, don't talk to him, he's a piece of [bleep]. [all laugh] - so fun. - do you want to bang shneeva longoria? [both laugh] both: dolphin-itely. [club music] ♪
11:01 pm
[indistinct chatter] ♪ [gunshot] [latin music] - whoa. - wow. - wa-wa-we-wa. - ha. borat. - totes. [tires screech]
11:02 pm
from comedy central's world news headquarters in new york, this is "the daily show" with jon stewart. captioning sponsored by comedy central ["daily show" theme song playing] [cheers and applause] >> jon: welcome to "the daily show". my name is jon stewart. we got -- [cheers and applause] what a program for you tonight. our guest tonight missing cummings an associate professor of ayer naughtic and astronautics at mit and instructs the navy on autonomous warfare. she possesses the biggest cute name to largest job gap in our nation's history. [ laughter ] i want to thank our audience truly braving perilous weather conditions. this is how i got to work this morning. [ laughter ]
11:03 pm
yeah. because in new york city it's colder than a witch's titty it's new york! it made me realize something. gorm -- gorming is a total -- global warming is a total hoax and here is how i know, because it's cold today where i live. that's. ♪ just science. in fact, if anything there's a new ice age coming today. [ laughter ] where i live. which we're totally unprepared for because it's been so unseasonably warm this winter. touch wonder who is perpetrating this global warming hoax. climate scientists are too dumb to pull it off. and all of our supervillains are safely locked up at an asylum and there's really only one man
11:04 pm
capable of this hoax. perhaps noted mantei teo prankster ronaiah tuiasosopo tuiasosopo! stop it with this cold! tuiasosopo! our lips are turning blu-asosopo. we'll catch the flu-asosopo. because i have a kind of weak immune system because i'm a jew-asospo. [ laughter ] i'm going to be sorry to see this guy go quite frankly. here we are, listen two days since barack obama's inauguration speech in which he may recall you gave an unapologetic defense of the social safety net and addressed the criticism of entitlement. >> the commitments we make to each other through medicare, medicaid and social security. these things do not sap our
11:05 pm
nation, they strengthen us. [cheers and applause] they do not make us a nation of takers, they free us to take the risks that make this country great. >> jon: that's interesting. the president is using a rhetorical device in this speech that is -- what is it we're talking about help me out vanquished vice presidential candidate paul ryan, what is he doing? >> that rhetorical device he uses over and over and over a straw man. >> jon: actually you know what a straw man is when you create or falsely characterize a opponent's argument to dismantel the argument. i think the president is throwing your own words back in your face without naming you. passive al gretion. that's what he is using. passive aggression. this argument as a straw man. i could have sworn i heard a
11:06 pm
politician make that exact statement. >> we could become a society where the americans are not takers versus markers. we need more makers and less takers in america. [ laughter ] >> jon: so to be fair you don't want too many makers it's a whole other problem. seriously have you been on etsy? it's all we get it, you have a glue gun, okay! slam! look, you can't say the takers argument wasn't a part of your campaign congressman ryan. this is looking less like a man made of straw and more like a man made of tie titanium. really three 20 minute workouts a week. that's all -- i don't buy that for a second. how did obama mischaracterize the makers/takers argument? >> no one is suggesting what we call the earned entitlements
11:07 pm
like payroll taxes for medicare and social security are putting you in a taker category. no one suggests that whatsoever. >> jon: when you were saying takers you don't mean sweet old grams you mean hobo joe. i got it. but here is the thing: back in 2011 congressman paul ryan was pretty specific about how he defined taker. according to the tax foundation between 60% and 70% of americans get more benefits from the federal government than they pay back in taxes. we're getting to a society where we have a net majority of takers versus makers. >> jon: you are defining taker as as 70% of society. that's (bleep) takers. imagine how high that percentage would be if he included social security and medicare recipients on the taker list. you don't have to imagine it because it wouldn't be higher because it includes it on the taker list, social security and medicare according to the tax foundation report sighted by a
11:08 pm
paul reya, sorry ryan. if you don't include social security and medicare on the takers list you can't get to romney's more generous 47% taker to maker ratio. if takers were just welfare recipients it was 2%. i have to tell you nobody ever won an election demonizing such a small percentage of americans. well, hardly anyone. [ laughter ] the idea that republicans characterized even social security and medicare as halmakes of a takers society -- hallmarks of a taker society i'll let the speakers describe it. >> we built it. >> you better believe they built it. >> performing i built it. ♪ i built it >> jon: yeah, you built in that (bleep). i know a great web site where
11:09 pm
you can sell it if you have a glue gun. [ laughter ] what is the day -- here is what i don't understand -- what is the danger of receiving help from the government when you need it? >> we risk hitting a tipping point in our society where we have more takers than makers, where we will have turned our safety net into a hammock that allows able body people to lie in complaiscy which drains them of their will and incentive. >> jon: i'll give you this: that say good description of what a hammock does. [ laughter ] to ryan's liner point that government programs drain your initiative, most of the food stamp and medicaid takers are the working poor who i'm sure would love hammock time but they are too busy flipping burgers or working literally the swing shift in a windowless hammock
11:10 pm
factory. try walking in their shoes or your shoes when at 16 you received government benefits. >> i did not see myself as a vifnlgt i saw myself on a road of opportunity trying to realize my version of american dream trying to pursue happiness. >> jon: so you didn't fall into the ham hock. that freed you up to pursue your american dream. it's a beautiful sentment. where i have heard it before. >> these thing dozen not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. [cheers and applause] they do not make us a nation of takers, they free us to take the risks that make this country great. >> jon: oh ! so the rhetorical device obama used wasn't a straw man, it wasn't even passive aggression, it was0a-xr$,(,x ji%[cheers and]
11:11 pm
11:12 pm
11:13 pm
11:14 pm
>> jon: welcome back to the show. yesterday as everyone is talking about election day in israel, no? [ laughter ] election day in israel. we bring you the ongoing coverage of circu-decision 0773 vote -- i guarantee you that killed in park slope. [ laughter ] as you know, israel's incumbent prime minister benjamin netanyahu is awesome. >> the israeli prime minister is committed to the safety and security of the israeli and the jewish people.
11:15 pm
>> prime minister benjamin netanyahu is say noted hawk. >> a superhawk in israel. >> a very effective leader. >> israel has its own tough guy his name is netanyahu. shalom this, is chuck norris. [ laughter ] >> jon: did not see that coming. that was an advertisement for netanyahu's reelection. what demographic is that targeting? ardent zionists who haven't been to the movies in 30 years? it's hard to imagine an endorsement from anyone that would do the prime minister of israel less good or have a more apparent hairpiece. >> vote for benjamin, terrific guy, terrific leader, great for israel. >> jon: i stand corrected. [ laughter ] of course, the other thing you
11:16 pm
need to know about benjamin netanyahu is that barack obama doesn't think he's awesome. >> he's insulted prime minister bb netanyahu. >> he has been rude to netanyahu. >> obama has been caught on tape saying you think you have it bad, i have toll deal with him every day. >> if the president is the best friend israel had, why did he snub the prime minister at the white house. >> jon: i mean he had a sleepover and invited everyone except netanyahu. everyone was there. [ laughter ] i -- [ laughter ] cameron has quite the package. and since barack obama cannot stand israel's awesome prime minister you know what that means. >> obama is not a friend of israel. >> he has proposed israel adopt indefenseible borders.
11:17 pm
>> this is the most anti-israel administration in the history of the state of israel. >> jon: oh, for -- all obama did was on the settlement gently suggest they maybe reconsider building -- you know what technically that does make him the most anti-israel president in the history of the united states i forgot toll gently suggest that is not allowed. anyone who opposed or puts day or any other type of light between themselves and benjamin netanyahu or his april genda is an enemy of israel. you wouldn't believe where some of israel's enemies are turning up. >> big political news overseas. >> did he not cruise to an easy victory. >> the conservative party side tour 60 seats each in parliament. >> jon: oh, my god! 60% of israel is antisemitic.
11:18 pm
how did this snap netanyahu had chuck norris on his team. how did the center left pull the upset? [ laughter ] did not see that coming. ,x[cheers and applause]
11:19 pm
11:20 pm
11:21 pm
>> jon: welcome back.
11:22 pm
my guest tonight an associate professor of aeronautics and aft troa naughtics at d astronautics you can catch her on rise of drone. >> the united states air force calls them remotely piloted aircraft but most people know them as drones. no longer just eyes in the sky, they are take the pilot out of cockpit and revolutionizing warfare by allowing us to see and kill from half a world away. >> we can easily make out people from five, six miles away. >> you can put weapons through a window-sized opening with ease. >> jon: i'm going to shut my window. [ laughter ] please welcome missy cummings. [cheers and applause] how are you? [cheers and applause] >> i'm good. thank you. >> jon: so this is the
11:23 pm
technology -- the technology of this is so -- even the rise of drones has such a sci-fi kind of vibe to it. there's always that sense whenever the united states makes a sort of jump in kind of warfare we celebrate it and realize seven going to have one of these in five years sox that the general consensus of those working on this type of technology. >> you could do on a web site to do it yourself drones and build it yourself. >> jon: i would not tell that to me. [ laughter ] it's actually like a home project? >> or if you go to brookstone or amazon and buy one online. >> jon: with a hell-fire sniffle. >> not quite those are a little bit more. >> jon: the technology is simple. >> we call them unmanned aerial vehicles because the word drone
11:24 pm
takes on a stupidness. they are getting smarter. they are sim aircraft. that's one of reasons they are so popular because they are cheaper to build and a lot cheaper to fly and maintain. you don't need an expensive pilot that costs millions to train. >> jon: doesn't take away any advantage that the united states has. if we have advantage it's that we like to spend a huge amount of money on defense. the only advantage we have is like you've got one tank, we've got a million. >> so we're just building more drones. >> jon: more drones? >> yes. >> jon: is there -- you know, technology has in some ways democratized people's ability to do a tremendous amount of damage. if you can cheaply make a drone and arm it with a missile, things that only a country could do before could be done by individual groups. not top only discuss the dystopian division of drones, is
11:25 pm
there a division of your office that works only on the perverted use of that? >> every technology can be perverted in some way. but i think one of areas people don't think about when we talk about drones is the commercial applications. for example, in five or ten years, i think you'll see fed-ex, ups unmanned aircrafts flying our packages around. >> jon: i thought you were going in a different direction of fed-ex and ups. just boom! open window. here is your package! [ laughter ] is there a concern -- you know, that the ease of it allows the government to mere eisley overstep -- easily to overstep or authority -- is it easier to
11:26 pm
lose sight of the killing power given the distance you have from it? >> we've been backing up warfare out of battlefield for many, many years from high altitude bombing, ballistic missiles. so flying drones is getting us further from the target but that's a long trend. i think the military does a fantastic job of having the regulations in place and discussing it. there's an entire conference, for example, of military ethics that does nothing but discuss unmanned vehicles or warfare. >> jon: can we go to that one? >> sure it's riveting. there's a danger for small countries because the barrier top entry is so low. anyone can go to doityourselfdrones and find the technology. it could be anthrax, for example. it's a real concern and government is working on how to defend against these kind after
11:27 pm
tacks. >> jon: you get the sense that whatever people can make you can be sure they'll use it for somewhat of an anefarious even atomic energy. is that a moral concern? >> i think so. i used to fly f-18 for the navy, flying it ten years ago was difficult because it was me talking to one other person on the radio making the decisions under stress over a target. today we have drones and other people on the ground and they are talking to each other. they are talking to the air traffic control plane in the sky. they are talking to people at the pentagon, for example, so we've got a lot more people talking in real-time. so i think drone warfare is say safer, more effective form of warfare. less collateral damage and press blue on blue kills which is when
11:28 pm
we kill our own people. >> jon: what about a death star? >> i signed that petition. >> jon: did you really? why didn't you sign that petition? [ laughter ] when you think about it if you say it's sort of an easier technology, is that the kind of thing where -- you know, i always -- listen, i watch a lot of movies. anything like the clone armies, drones -- all those types of things. you see 30 years from now there may be robotic warfare where there are, you know killing fields of robots that are just kind of at each other. >> sure darfa. >> jon: who is that? >> defense -- >> jon: oh, yeah, yeah. >> yeah so they've got work going on right now to do that. i also think that there's a lot of work going on inside the military and outside the military to commercialize these but even to do humanitarian aid.
11:29 pm
i'm working with the navy on a helicopter that could be called in by somebody on distress. you call it from the smart phone it finds you and lands and can do an emergency evacuation. no human pilot involved. >> jon: can you do that with taxis? >> i think going is on that. >> jon: can you take around a couple minutes? >> sure. >> jon: we'll talk a little bit more. you can watch nova's rise of the drones on pbs this week. you can catch it on the nova web site. missi


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on